tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post657974691164977602..comments2024-03-29T08:14:29.603+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: "To our own people only": Re-owning AnglicanismAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-39239683903164069942007-11-06T21:35:00.000+01:002007-11-06T21:35:00.000+01:00Regarding the Anglicans and the 39Articles!As I wa...Regarding the Anglicans and the 39Articles!<BR/><BR/>As I was taught the Articles were stops or fences pass which the wilder bretheren, Calvinist or Anglo -Papist should not go. What,to my mind, defines the Church in England, is the fact that in 1536 Convocation stated Anglican belief in the 7 Ecumenical Councils. In 1547,1572 and in the 2nd year of Elizabeth this stance was renewd. This is surely the basis of Anglican Catholicism. <BR/><BR/>As for what is Anglicanism? The term had been used for over a thousand years at the start of the Reformation,. The Anglican is surely defined by holding to the 'Revelation of Christ once made to the Saints and recorded within Holy Scripture. Whilst interpreted by the Holy Fathers in Council and the Consensus of the Greek Fathers.'highchurchmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06758923949944286862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-73316785971221535542007-08-01T06:44:00.000+02:002007-08-01T06:44:00.000+02:00If I get time I hope to add some comments, but for...If I get time I hope to add some comments, but for now I wanted to revisit that oldChestnut about what is and what isn't 'Anglican' - someone on PCC comes up with a good idea, but event those who agree are unwilling to pursue the matter - because it wouldn't be 'Anglican', but fastBackward 50 years - would guitars and women's ordination have been reckoned as 'Anglican'? 'New occasions teach new duties; time makes ancient good uncouth. They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth' - everyone apparently has the right to define what is 'Anglican' - that is everyone except people people like Richard Wood - and Richard Coekin, whose license was revoked because of a technical irregularity, and imagine what would happen if during an interregnum warden or reader administered the Lord's Supper - immediately you see the local archdeacon, slipper in hand breathing out threatenings and slaughter. So what do you suppose the reaction would be to someone who flouted both the letter and spirit of Anglicanism and defied the Anglican Communion - they would be be invited to talk it through, the door is always open apparently - aye - much of today's statusQuo came about through irregular and sometimes illegal actions - 'Treason doth never prosper - what's the reason? If it prosper none dare call it treason' - as for a definition of what's 'Anglican', how about the 39 Articles - more honoured in the breach than the observance - I mean c'mon, how many parishes observe the 39 articles? And it's the biggest offenders who are always sounding off about what is and isn't 'Anglican' - as it happens, it is people like Richard Wood and Richard Coekin who are the true Anglicans - they are among those whose understanding and practice most conforms to the 39 ArticlesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-28046339787196287632007-07-19T15:20:00.000+02:002007-07-19T15:20:00.000+02:00Dear John,apologies for failing to quote you corre...Dear John,<BR/><BR/>apologies for failing to quote you correctly. Thankfully you understood what I meant!<BR/><BR/>I concur there can be an unhealthy separatism in some branches of non-conformity. Nonetheless I still regard them, as you, a brother in Christ.<BR/><BR/>John Foxe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-36823156763373327382007-07-19T13:20:00.000+02:002007-07-19T13:20:00.000+02:00Dear John FoxeYou asked who were the 'some other R...Dear John Foxe<BR/><BR/>You asked who were the 'some other Reformers' who did not regard themselves as both catholic and reformed.<BR/><BR/>As far as I can see, I didn't actually use the phrase in inverted commas! However, I may have created confusion by a convoluted sentence where I wrote that Anglicanism avoided "the absolutist <I>claims</I> to truth represented by both the church of Rome and some reforming groups in the sixteenth century". What I had in mind for the latter were those like the 'heavenly prophets', who condemned not only Rome but Luther. I don't think the Anglican reformers thought like that, though there is a tendency amongst Evangelicals (most of whom don't know Luther) to say Luther didn't go far enough.<BR/><BR/>It was this that led me to write that, "The Anglican <I>via media</I> is not [to] be neither Catholic nor Reformed but to be <I>both</I> Catholic ... and Reformed" - a clumsy construction which I've amended, though the double negative, I'm afraid, remains.<BR/><BR/>What I was trying to address was the opinion that the Anglican <I>via media</I> is about avoiding 'extremes' ('keep to the middle of the road'), but rather was about embracing two fundamental principles. Being 'catholic' meant allowing other (particular or national) churches to do things their way. Being 'reformed' meant adopting some theological principles whilst rejecting others. At the same time, however, embracing reform means embracing the principle of always being open to reform.<BR/><BR/>On your other comments, I wholeheartedly agree.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-68660645300950284192007-07-19T12:48:00.000+02:002007-07-19T12:48:00.000+02:00Dear John,who were the 'some other Reformers' who,...Dear John,<BR/><BR/>who were the 'some other Reformers' who, in your view, did not regard themselves as both catholic and reformed? Calvin et al certainly did not view themselves as departing from the Reformed faith. Indeed, their perspective on Reformed catholicity was still current the following century when the Church of England was seated with the other Reformed churches of Europe at the synod of Dordt.<BR/><BR/>Other Reformed believers in England cerrtainly view themselves as part of the catholic church. <BR/><BR/>Historically one should also remember there are two strands in English free churches. There were the pre-1662 separatists who were dissatisfied at the pace of reform in the church of England and chose to separate. Then there are the non-conformists who were forcibly ejected because they did not see Anglican ceremonials and rites as essential to the Christian faith. Until the Church of England changes on this point (and I note you would like it to!) it cannot be the comprehensive church you ideally envisage it should be. <BR/><BR/>Apart from this matter of rites and ceremonies the fundamental problem now is that no evangelical free churchman would want to unify with the Church of England until it sorts itself out on matters of fundamental doctrine. Will the CofE ever discipline the many false teachers within it who lead sinners blindly into hell? Sadly I doubt it. (Even though I give thanks to God for the godly teachers within it who teach the truth.)<BR/><BR/>Yours in Christ,<BR/><BR/>John FoxeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com